Well, we passed a law against it. Problem solved. Just like speeding. Just like running red lights. Just like murder is illegal. Just like gun control. Just like cooking workers with tuna. Problem solved.

Which is the problem with gun 'control' legislation, you pass a law and OF COURSE everybody will obey it............except criminals.

It is SUPREME idiocy to pass a law depriving a law abiding US citizen from possessing a means of defense against criminals armed with illegal guns. And now that the FBI is arresting 2 people a week here, pledged to ISIS and intent on killing innocents in their name, it is doubly idiotic to disarm the irregular militia. If you ask the 2nd Amendment ‘amenders’ what the Texas University Clock Tower sniper shootings, the McDonalds Massacre, Chucky Cheese, Columbine, Sandy Hook, the Aurora Theatre and most recently and most sadly Emmanuel A E M church, have in common they will virtually shout GUNS!

The other common fact they conveniently won’t consider in any discussion, dismissing it out of hand, is that every one of these heinous acts of violence occurred in what a tactical viewpoint would term a ‘soft’ target.

A gun free zone. No guns allowed. No chance of anyone resisting the murderous intent of the perpetrator.

The people (and I mean the people of the entire world) need to stop being naive and take stock of what is happening everywhere. Mankind is and has always been engaged in a war. A war told in the Qur'an, the Bible, the Torah of Israel and the teachings of Buddha and every other religious leader and most philosophers.
The war of Evil versus Good.

There is evil in the world and people who would do evil, to pretend to be safe because a law or rule has decreed that safety is deadly folly. ‘The map is not the territory’. He who's name will not be written by me, the Aurora Theater shooter's journal details how he ‘cased’ the airport and other venues before deciding that the Theatre would offer the best chance of his not facing return fire. This from the mind of an evil man.

We need to realize that ultimately each of us is responsible for our personal protection and for that of the ones we love from any threat. That is the intended reason for the 2nd Amendment. I have no problem with removing ALL GUNS from society worldwide. The cold fact is that will never happen, so deal with the actual situation.

"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." -Wayne La Pierre

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

[quote]Well, we passed a law against it. Problem solved. Just like speeding. Just like running red lights. Just like murder is illegal. Just like gun control. Just like cooking workers with tuna. Problem solved.

Which is the problem with gun 'control' legislation, you pass a law and OF COURSE everybody will obey it............except criminals. [/quote[
Is this an argument for saying we shouldn't have any laws? I actually don't get the logic here.

It is SUPREME idiocy to pass a law depriving a law abiding US citizen from possessing a means of defense against criminals armed with illegal guns. And now that the FBI is arresting 2 people a week here, pledged to ISIS and intent on killing innocents in their name, it is doubly idiotic to disarm the irregular militia. If you ask the 2nd Amendment ‘amenders’ what the Texas University Clock Tower sniper shootings, the McDonalds Massacre, Chucky Cheese, Columbine, Sandy Hook, the Aurora Theatre and most recently and most sadly Emmanuel A E M church, have in common they will virtually shout GUNS!

That's all well and good as long as you don't take notice of any facts. Most shootings are not done in self defence.

The other common fact they conveniently won’t consider in any discussion, dismissing it out of hand, is that every one of these heinous acts of violence occurred in what a tactical viewpoint would term a ‘soft’ target.

Another fact is that is has been shown that arming people in this situations does not improve the outcome and may even make it more likely for more people to get killed.

A gun free zone. No guns allowed. No chance of anyone resisting the murderous intent of the perpetrator.

Except most people aren't Jack Bauer and simply arming people doesn't mean they successfully resist people. What it does do is make it easier for these people to get hold of guns in the first place.

The people (and I mean the people of the entire world) need to stop being naive and take stock of what is happening everywhere. Mankind is and has always been engaged in a war. A war told in the Qur'an, the Bible, the Torah of Israel and the teachings of Buddha and every other religious leader and most philosophers.

America is pretty much living in cloud cuckoo land compared to the rest of the western world when it comes to guns. Bring your numbers of mass murders down to our levels, then you can lecture the rest of the world about being naive.

The war of Evil versus Good.

There is evil in the world and people who would do evil, to pretend to be safe because a law or rule has decreed that safety is deadly folly. ‘The map is not the territory’. He who's name will not be written by me, the Aurora Theater shooter's journal details how he ‘cased’ the airport and other venues before deciding that the Theatre would offer the best chance of his not facing return fire. This from the mind of an evil man.

Yes, and he was of course behaving in a totally rational and realistic way when he made his threat assessment.

We need to realize that ultimately each of us is responsible for our personal protection and for that of the ones we love from any threat. That is the intended reason for the 2nd Amendment. I have no problem with removing ALL GUNS from society worldwide. The cold fact is that will never happen, so deal with the actual situation.

This is a little bit crazy when you see the actual consequences of this ideology.

"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." -Wayne La Pierre

Except facts again have shown that a) in reality this does not happen. b) the actual best way is to stop the bad guy getting the gun in the first place.

---

Reality Internet Personality

We need to realize that ultimately each of us is responsible for our personal protection and for that of the ones we love from any threat. That is the intended reason for the 2nd Amendment.

No see, thats why we invented society and the code of law. So we would share the responsibility of our safety between everyone who is a member of our society.

Better yet, in the rest of the industrialized world, we also came up with this lovely little concept called the 'monopoly of violence' and we decided that it was the state that should have that. What it means is that the state is the only one who can use violence, both from a legal perspective and from a practical perspective. This has resulted in historically low murder rates and unprecedented personal safety.

Those evil people you are so worried about? Well I'm sure they exist over here in Europe. Its just that they have a really hard time getting their hands on enough destructive capability to do harm on the scale we see in the United States.

Is this an argument for saying we shouldn't have any laws? I actually don't get the logic here.

Typical liberal tactic of taking the idea to the extreme. The logic is criminals are criminals because they don't obey laws.

That's all well and good as long as you don't take notice of any facts. Most shootings are not done in self defence.

I don't see any citation of facts by you and in fact I can quote instance after instance in news reports where a gun in the hands of a legal owner has saved their and others lives.

Another fact is that is has been shown that arming people in this situations does not improve the outcome and may even make it more likely for more people to get killed.

No citation of instance. I can and will cite instances where it has made a difference."Gunman killed after opening fire at church" http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/ And from your own safe and secure country ""MPs and Hill staff owe their safety, even lives, to Sergeant at Arms Kevin Vickers who shot attacker just outside the MPs' caucus rooms," Craig Scott, a member of Parliament, wrote."http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/americas/canada-ottawa-shooting/index.html

America is pretty much living in cloud cuckoo land compared to the rest of the western world when it comes to guns. Bring your numbers of mass murders down to our levels, then you can lecture the rest of the world about being naive.

No lecture is needed, it is obvious. I left my loaded gun next to the front door all day, guess what, the mailman delivered, UPS came by, several Jehovah's Witnesses rang my door bell, and unlike what you believe my gun didn't kill anyone!

Yes, and he was of course behaving in a totally rational and realistic way when he made his threat assessment.

I hope you were not trying to be sarcastic, yes, he was rational and a coward, as are ALL mass murderers. One armed opposer and they run whimpering into the night.

This is a little bit crazy when you see the actual consequences of this ideology.

Not crazy at all except to those who believe the 'Great God Government' will protect them from all things.

Except facts again have shown that a) in reality this does not happen. b) the actual best way is to stop the bad guy getting the gun in the first place.

You keep saying 'facts' but don't give any. As before stated I can cite instance after instance where this has in FACT occurred.

The FACT is this isn't about controlling guns, it's about controlling PEOPLE, as it always is with Liberal agendas. We don't advocate every person having a gun, what we DO advocate is everyone having the FREE CHOICE to have a gun.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Better yet, in the rest of the industrialized world, we also came up with this lovely little concept called the 'monopoly of violence' and we decided that it was the state that should have that. What it means is that the state is the only one who can use violence, both from a legal perspective and from a practical perspective. This has resulted in historically low murder rates and unprecedented personal safety.
Those evil people you are so worried about? Well I'm sure they exist over here in Europe. Its just that they have a really hard time getting their hands on enough destructive capability to do harm on the scale we see in the United States.

I'm sure that utopian philosophy is of great comfort to the families of the children murdered by Anders Breivik........http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-earl-e-johnson/mass-murder-in-norway-why_b_7621836.html

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Better yet, in the rest of the industrialized world, we also came up with this lovely little concept called the 'monopoly of violence' and we decided that it was the state that should have that. What it means is that the state is the only one who can use violence, both from a legal perspective and from a practical perspective. This has resulted in historically low murder rates and unprecedented personal safety.
Those evil people you are so worried about? Well I'm sure they exist over here in Europe. Its just that they have a really hard time getting their hands on enough destructive capability to do harm on the scale we see in the United States.

I'm sure that utopian philosophy is of great comfort to the families of the children murdered by Anders Breivik........http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-earl-e-johnson/mass-murder-in-norway-why_b_7621836.html

What they have in Europe is socialized medical care that includes psychiatric care. In the USA, they are thrown on the street, not given treatment and allowed to refuse help.

---

I'm sure that utopian philosophy is of great comfort to the families of the children murdered by Anders Breivik........http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-earl-e-johnson/mass-murder-in-norway-why_b_7621836.html

Actually, Norwegian gun laws are relatively lax. Its pretty easy to get a rifle for hunting purposes. All you need is a clean police record and you need to document why you want the gun.

Aside from that, Anders Breivik was a right wing terrorist, not just a spree shooter. And even then, he was a bit of an exception. Where spree shootings happen multiple times a year in the United States, in Europe they happen only rarely.

You can prove anything with statistics.

Looking at all countries for which the Small Arms Survey measured gun ownership, and using the Small Arms Survey data the way that it measures gun ownership, implies that more guns equals fewer homicides.

Developed nations as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), developed countries in fact show that more gun ownership as measured by the Small Arms Survey is associated with fewer homicides.

Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries.
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

The alleged 'Gun Culture' of The USA, varies from City to City, State to State, Region to Region, Culture to Culture.
Those travelling across this Continental, Multi Language, Culture, Religion, Different Laws, Different Penalties, etc. Will say to themselves: 'What Country am I in now'?
As with most of The USA:
Attempting to define 'American Culture', regarding many things: Is either an 'Exercise in Futility'. Or exposing ones ignorance of The USA.

Replace the words USA and American to Europe and European.
We are in the same boat:)

The alleged 'Gun Culture' of The USA, varies from City to City, State to State, Region to Region, Culture to Culture.
Those travelling across this Continental, Multi Language, Culture, Religion, Different Laws, Different Penalties, etc. Will say to themselves: 'What Country am I in now'?
As with most of The USA:
Attempting to define 'American Culture', regarding many things: Is either an 'Exercise in Futility'. Or exposing ones ignorance of The USA.

Replace the words USA and American to Europe and European.
We are in the same boat:)

To understand The USA...
Think of Europe - Lite.

Hehehe. Perhaps Europe is a province of the US after all like Putin Thinks.
One big difference though.
We don't have one offical language that everyone understand.
Perhaps 50 countries with some of them having several languages.
Sweden has two:) Switzerland has Three.
But on the other hand most countries understand english.
Well. Perhaps not France and Germany:)

We don't have one offical language that everyone understand.
Perhaps 50 countries with some of them having several languages.

50 States, 50 dialects. You need the opportunity to hear a Maine Lobsterman trying to talk to a Louisiana Cajun Shrimper..........priceless. ":D)

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

We don't have one offical language that everyone understand.
Perhaps 50 countries with some of them having several languages.

50 States, 50 dialects. You need the opportunity to hear a Maine Lobsterman trying to talk to a Louisiana Cajun Shrimper..........priceless. ":D)

Yes, they'll likely settle on Mayan with a bit of LAM Spanish thrown in.

We don't have one offical language that everyone understand.
Perhaps 50 countries with some of them having several languages.

50 States, 50 dialects. You need the opportunity to hear a Maine Lobsterman trying to talk to a Louisiana Cajun Shrimper..........priceless. ":D)

Dialects as well:)
I have problem to understand some of our dialects.
Yes. one state with many Swedish dialects.
For instance the Southern part when many of us wants subtitles.
The counties Värmland and Jämtland close to Norway as well.
The island Gotland not far from Stockholm.

And of course Älvdalen:)
Here is a text from the Bible.

Men aindjeln saggd að diem: Warið it skerner! Ig kumb min buoð að ið at ið ulið war sturglaðir, ollt fuok ul werd glaðir. I dag ar ien frelser kumið til að ið i Daviðes stad, og an ir Messias, Ärrn.

To get back on topic.
Authorites like the police can in fact be misunderstood in duty when they have different accents.
It happens quite often here that the police listen to much on the dialect of a "perpetrator"/perpetrator.

John Russell Houser a man who had "a Georgia judge's order committing him to mental health treatment against his will as a danger to himself and others," passed a background check and bought a gun.

When are the gun control nuts going to realize it isn't gun laws that are the problem. It is laws like HIPPA hat don't allow Doctors and health professionals to talk about the mentally ill who should be kept away from guns that are the issue?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MOVIE_THEATER_SHOOTING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-07-25-18-01-07

"It sure does seem like something failed," said Judge Susan Tate, who presides over a probate court in Athens, Georgia, and has studied issues relating to weapons and the mentally ill. "I have no idea how he was able to get a firearm."

Houser never should have been able to buy a gun, said Sheriff Heath Taylor in Russell County, Alabama, whose office denied him a concealed weapons permit in 2006 based on arson and domestic violence allegations, even though the victims declined to pursue charges.

Houser racked up plenty of complaints, but no evidence has surfaced of any criminal conviction that would have kept him from passing the background check required for many gun purchases. Federal law does generally prohibit the purchase or possession of a firearm by anyone who has ever been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.

That's what happened to Houser in 2008 after his family accused him of threatening behavior, warning authorities that he had a history of manic depression or bipolar disorder and was making ominous statements. His wife removed his guns and together, the family persuaded a judge to issue a protective order keeping him away once he left the hospital.

At that point, court officials should have reported Houser's involuntary mental commitment to the Georgia database that feeds the FBI's background check system, which provides for a delay of up to three days when records suggest a buyer may be ineligible.

Questions about gaps in the system also arose after James Holmes bought firearms to kill 12 people and wound 58 others in a Denver suburb three years ago, and after Dylann Storm Roof allegedly used a gun he bought this year to murder nine churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina.

But while both young men showed signs of trouble, neither had criminal convictions, nor where they hospitalized against their will.

Roof had admitted to illegal drug possession in a pending criminal case, however, which under federal rules would have been enough to disqualify him from a gun purchase even though he wasn't convicted.

Someone has to say it. Three gun control law failures. Shouldn't that be three strikes and gun control laws are out?

America has a crazy control issue.

---

America has a crazy control issue.

+1000

Gun Free Zones Get People Killed.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Gun Free Zones Get People Killed.

You really believe that. I can tell. Came across this:

Fascinating.

I'd be interested in your view.

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?

I'd be interested in your view.

My view on the article is it's an example of the strawman arguments always perpetrated by the 'anti-gun no matter what the facts are' crowd. The strawman here is the purported 'hypocrisy' of not allowing concealed carry in a SECURED venue.

There are many areas that concealed carry is not allowed because of the security already in place as evidenced by metal detectors and ARMED uniformed and non-uniformed operatives as was the case in both venues. Concealed carry license holders understand this and willingly eschew their firearms in such situations.

To just declare an area a 'Gun Free Zone' without the proper institution of adequate security in lieu of personal firearm protection for those properly licensed and trained is an invitation to those who would commit heinous atrocities unless deterred.

The sign might as well read "We Won't Shoot Back". Those who commit such acts are cowards who do not wish to be confronted by armed resistance when slaughtering innocents, that's why they choose Schools, Churches, Restaurants, Strip Malls and yes, Theaters. The journal of 'he I refuse to name' in Aurora Colorado details his 'casing' the Denver International Airport and other venues for his 'statement' but then deciding the security and thus the chance of his being stopped was too great. Another 'one I refuse to name' made the same decision in a church in Charleston.

These A**wipes are not interested in dying, they are interested in making others die. The much maligned Wayne La Pierre and the NRA stated after Sandy Hook 'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'. The police are not and cannot be everywhere, the final responsibility for personal protection against violence rests in the hands of each individual, as it always has.

And that's my view.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

I'd be interested in your view.

My view on the article is it's an example of the strawman arguments always perpetrated by the 'anti-gun no matter what the facts are' crowd. The strawman here is the purported 'hypocrisy' of not allowing concealed carry in a SECURED venue.

There are many areas that concealed carry is not allowed because of the security already in place as evidenced by metal detectors and ARMED uniformed and non-uniformed operatives as was the case in both venues. Concealed carry license holders understand this and willingly eschew their firearms in such situations.

To just declare an area a 'Gun Free Zone' without the proper institution of adequate security in lieu of personal firearm protection for those properly licensed and trained is an invitation to those who would commit heinous atrocities unless deterred.

The sign might as well read "We Won't Shoot Back". Those who commit such acts are cowards who do not wish to be confronted by armed resistance when slaughtering innocents, that's why they choose Schools, Churches, Restaurants, Strip Malls and yes, Theaters. The journal of 'he I refuse to name' in Aurora Colorado details his 'casing' the Denver International Airport and other venues for his 'statement' but then deciding the security and thus the chance of his being stopped was too great. Another 'one I refuse to name' made the same decision in a church in Charleston.

These A**wipes are not interested in dying, they are interested in making others die. The much maligned Wayne La Pierre and the NRA stated after Sandy Hook 'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'. The police are not and cannot be everywhere, the final responsibility for personal protection against violence rests in the hands of each individual, as it always has.

And that's my view.

I'd simply ask the people at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Los_Angeles_International_Airport_shooting if the complete absence of guns at an airport kept them safe. Remember in a gun free zone, no one has guns. Not even cops! Oh wait! For a gun free zone to work, you have to have dozens of gun toting people to enforce that no one but them has a gun. That isn't a gun free zone, that is a total government control of your life zone.

---

I'd simply ask the people at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Los_Angeles_International_Airport_shooting if the complete absence of guns at an airport kept them safe. Remember in a gun free zone, no one has guns. Not even cops! Oh wait! For a gun free zone to work, you have to have dozens of gun toting people to enforce that no one but them has a gun. That isn't a gun free zone, that is a total government control of your life zone.

Exactly the point, criminals don't obey rules, you might as well say 'Gravity Free Zone', same effect on reality......none!

Just like "There is no such thing as an unloaded Gun" there is also "No such thing as a Gun Free Zone". Too believe otherwise is a naive fool's paradise.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

And that's my view.

I sense you have issues. Thank you for clarifying them.

It crossed my mind that a less contentious solution would have been to allow the GOP candidates weapons too.

But on re-reading the statement below:

'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'

I see the difficulty that would pose in distinguishing between who's who.

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?